Abstract
Iteration and improvement are important attributes of design, tacitly indicating that failure is also a part of the process. There are different conceptions of failure in engineering contexts than in other academic settings. Therefore, for beginning designers, these failure experiences may be perceived as mishaps, lowering confidence or interest. Given the seeming disconnect between the nature of design and the goal to foster design identities, it is important to understand experiences of failure and key elements in making failure a learning experience while designing. To map, assess, and synthesize findings related to failure experiences, a systematized literature review was conducted using the EBSCO Education Source database and conference proceedings from the American Society of Engineering Education and IEEE Frontiers in Education annual conferences. Search terms included variants of “failure” and STEM or design education. Thirty-five articles were identified with primary source investigations of failure in the classroom and included in the thematic synthesis. Key findings highlight varied interpretations of failure, even in design, student reactions to failure experiences, failure as a mechanism to uncover key concepts and promote reflection, and the importance of a safe climate for encountering failure.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the systematized review.
ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2015). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. ABET. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/.
Adams, R. S., & Fralick, B. Work in progress — A conceptions of design instrument as an assessment tool. In 2010 Frontiers in education conference, Arlington, VA, October 2010 (pp. F2G–1–F2G–2). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2010.5673125.
*Akatugba, A. H., & Wallace, J. (2009). An integrative perspective on students’ proportional reasoning in high school physics in a West African context. International Journal of Science Education, 31(11), 1473–1493. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690802101968
Akin, Ö. (1994). Creativity in design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 7(3), 9–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1937-8327.1994.tb00633.x
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
*Berglund, A., Eckerdal, A., Pears, A., East, P., Kinnunen, P., Malmi, L., et al. (2009). Learning computer science: Perceptions, actions and roles. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043790902989168
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2014). Systematic literature reviews in engineering education and other developing interdisciplinary fields. Journal of Engineering Education, 103(1), 45–76. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20038
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Cross, N. (1982). Designerly ways of knowing. Design Studies, 3(4), 221–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-694X(82)90040-0
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196
*DiNapoli, J. (2018). Supporting secondary students' perseverance for solving challenging mathematics tasks. In T. E. Hodges, G. J. Roy, & A. M. Tyminski (Eds.), Fortieth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Greenville, SC: University of South Carolina & Clemson University.
*DiNapoli, J. (2019). "Getting better at sticking with it": Examining perseverance improvement in secondary mathematics students. In S. Otten, A. G. Candela, Z. de Araujo, C. Haines, & C. Munter (Eds.), Forty-First Annual Meeting of the North America Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics (PME-NA), St. Louis, MO: University of Missouri.
Dorst, K. The Problem of Design Problems. In Expertise in Design: Design Thinking Research Symposium 6, Sydney, Australia, 2003.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design Studies, 32(6), 521–532.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–119.
*Fouché, J. (2013). Rethinking failure. Science Teacher, 80(8), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst13_080_08_45
*García, T., Boom, J., Kroesbergen, E. H., Núñez, J. C., & Rodríguez, C. (2019). Planning, execution, and revision in mathematics problem solving: Does the order of the phases matter? Studies in Educational Evaluation, 61, 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.03.001
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cogn Sci, 16(3), 395–429. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Grubbs, M., & Strimel, G. (2016). Engineering design: The great integrator. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77–90.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. The National Academies Press.
*Hutchison-Green, M. A., Follman, D. K., & Bodner, G. M. (2008). Providing a voice: Qualitative investigation of the impact of a first-year engineering experience on students’ efficacy beliefs. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00966.x
International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (2020). Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy: The Role of Technology and Engineering in STEM Education.
International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Author.
*Jacobson, M. J., Markauskaite, L., Portolese, A., Kapur, M., Lai, P. K., & Roberts, G. (2017). Designs for learning about climate change as a complex system. Learning and Instruction, 52, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.03.007
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research & Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500
*Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669
*Kapur, M. (2010). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38(6), 523–550. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-009-9093-x
*Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem solving: unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3
*Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9209-6
*Kapur, M. (2014a). Comparing Learning from productive failure and vicarious failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 651–677. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2013.819000
*Kapur, M. (2014b). Productive failure in learning math. Cogn Sci, 38(5), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12107
*Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(1), 45–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2011.591717
*Kapur, M., & Kinzer, C. K. (2009). Productive failure in CSCL groups. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4(1), 21–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-008-9059-z
Kelley, T., & Rayala, M. (2011). The Knowledge and Skills of Creativity and Design. In S. A. Warner, & P. R. Gemmill (Eds.), Creativity and Design in Technology & Engineering Education (Vol. 60). Reston, VA: Council on Technology Teacher Education.
Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. Oxford University Press.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Architectural Press.
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
*Liu, S. (2015). Virtual experiments or worked examples? How to learn the control of variable strategy. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-014-9240-6
*Loibl, K., & Leuders, T. (2019). How to make failure productive: Fostering learning from errors through elaboration prompts. Learning and Instruction, 62, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.03.002
Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-016-9379-x
*Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5
*Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2015) Elementary Teachers’ Reported Responses to Student Design Failures. In 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, WA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.23930
*Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2017a). Elementary teachers’ reflections on design failures and use of fail words after teaching engineering for two years. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1160
*Lottero-Perdue, P. S., & Parry, E. A. (2017b). Perspectives on failure in the classroom by elementary teachers new to teaching engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1158
Mann, E. L. (2009). Creativity in engineering. In B. Kerr (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (pp. 210–212). Sage Publications.
*Matlen, B. J., & Klahr, D. (2013). Sequential effects of high and low instructional guidance on children’s acquisition of experimentation skills: Is it all in the timing? Instructional Science, 41(3), 621–634. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9248-z
McDonnell, J. (2015). Gifts to the future: Design reasoning, design research, and critical design practitioners. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 1(2), 107–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2016.01.007
Meese, N., & McMahon, C. (2012). Knowledge sharing for sustainable development in civil engineering: A systematic review. AI & SOCIETY, 27(4), 437–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-011-0369-8
Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, C. (2006). What Constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519–532.
Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21199
National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? The National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For States, By States. National Academies Press.
*Pan, R. C., Kuo, S.-P., & Strobel, J. (2010) Novice students' difficulties and remedies with the conceptualization phase of design. In 2010 Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.
*Pantziara, M., & Philippou, G. N. (2015). Students’ motivation in the mathematics classroom. Revealing causes and consequences. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 385–411.
*Pathak, S. A., Kim, B., Jacobson, M. J., & Zhang, B. (2011). Learning the physics of electricity: A qualitative analysis of collaborative processes involved in productive failure. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6(1), 57–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-010-9099-z
Petroski, H. (2006). Success through failure: The paradox of design. Princeton University Press.
Petroski, H. (2012). To forgive design: Understanding failure. Harvard University Press.
Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2008). Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Blackwell.
*Plenty, S., & Heubeck, B. G. (2013). A multidimensional analysis of changes in mathematics motivation and engagement during high school. Educational Psychology, 33(1), 14–30. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2012.740199
Rana, M. T., Robert, M. B., Eugene, B., Philip, C. A., & Richard, F. S. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: a second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of educational research, 81(1), 4–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310393361
Raney, C., & Jacoby, R. (2010). Decisions by design: Stop deciding, Start designing. Rotman Magazine, pp. 34–39.
Rong, H., & Choi, I. (2018). Integrating failure in case-based learning: a conceptual framework for failure classification and its instructional implications. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(3), 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9629-3
*Sawyer, R. K. (2019). The role of failure in learning how to create in art and design. Thinking Skills and Creativity. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.08.002
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). MIT Press.
*Sleezer, R., Swanson, J. J., & Bates, R. A. (2016). Using failure to teach design. In 2016 ASEE annual conference & exposition, New Orleans, LA. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.27145.
*Song, Y. (2018). Improving primary students’ collaborative problem solving competency in project-based science learning with productive failure instructional design in a seamless learning environment. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(4), 979–1008. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9600-3
*Sorvo, R., Koponen, T., Viholainen, H., Aro, T., Raikkonen, E., Peura, P., et al. (2017). Math anxiety and its relationship with basic arithmetic skills among primary school children. Br J Educ Psychol, 87(3), 309–327. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12151
Tawfik, A. A., Rong, H., & Choi, I. (2015). Failing to learn: Towards a unified design approach for failure-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(6), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9399-0
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
*Trenshaw, K. F., Herman, G. L., Green, K. A., & Goldberg, D. E. (2014). Fostering motivation as a class objective in a large engineering class for second-year students: A narrative approach. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(4), 837–847.
*Trueman, R. J. (2014). Productive failure in STEM education. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 42(3), 199–214. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.42.3.b
Ullman, D. G. (2001). Robust decision-making for engineering design. Journal of Engineering Design, 12(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820010031580
*Upadyaya, K., Viljaranta, J., Lerkkanen, M.-K., Poikkeus, A.-M., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2012). Cross-lagged relations between kindergarten teachers’ causal attributions, and children’s interest value and performance in mathematics. Social Psychology of Education, 15(2), 181–206. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9171-1
*Westermann, K., & Rummel, N. (2012). Delaying instruction: Evidence from a study in a university relearning setting. Instructional Science, 40(4), 673–689. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9207-8
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendices
Appendix 1
EBSCO Education Source Search Query (Conducted December 5, 2019)
# | Query |
|---|---|
S1 | "productive failure" OR "failure" OR "impasse" OR DE "Failure (Psychology)" |
S2 | DE "Science education" OR DE "Science education (Elementary)" OR DE "Science education (Middle school)" OR DE "Science education (Secondary)" OR DE "Science education (Higher)" OR DE "Computer science education" OR DE "Science classrooms and equipment") OR DE "Technology education" OR DE "Technology education (Middle school)" OR DE "Technology education (Secondary)" OR DE "Technology education (Higher)" OR DE "Engineering education" OR DE "Engineering education in elementary schools" OR DE "Engineering education in universities and colleges" OR DE "Mathematics education" OR DE "Mathematics education (Elementary)" OR DE "Mathematics education (Middle school)" OR DE "Mathematics education (Secondary)" OR DE "Mathematics education (Higher)" OR DE "Design education" OR DE "Design education in elementary schools" OR DE "Design education in secondary schools" OR DE "Design education in universities & colleges" OR DE "Engineering design education" OR DE "Engineering design education in elementary schools" OR DE "Engineering design education in secondary schools" OR DE "Engineering design education in universities & colleges" OR DE "STEM education" OR DE "STEAM education" OR DE "Problem Solving" |
S3 | "learning" OR "instruction" OR "education" |
S4 | S1 AND S2 AND S3 |
Limiters – | |
Publication Type: Academic Journal, Conference Paper, Conference Proceeding; | |
Language English |
Appendix 2
Data Extraction Form Elements
Study Identification
-
Title
-
Authors
-
Year of Publication
Study Context
-
Grade Level: Elementary, Middle School, High School, Undergraduate
-
Discipline Area: Science, Technology, Engineering, Math, design, unspecified
-
Failure approach: Enacted Failure, Psychological
-
If project-related: Collaborative, Individual, Not Applicable
-
Describe the Context
Research Design
-
Theoretical Framework
-
Qualitative or Quantitative
-
Study Design (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, or qualitative methodology used)
-
Sample Size: Students n, Teachers n
-
Information Sources (i.e., what scales or variables were used)
-
How are Outcomes Measured?
-
Analysis Methods (e.g., open coding, MANCOVA)
-
Key Findings
-
Failure leads to…
-
Threats to Study
-
Quality Assessment: Good, Great, Excellent
-
Notes/Connections
Appendix 3
Literature on Failure in K-16 STEM or Design Education
Article | Grade level | Discipline | Sample | Research Designa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Akatugba and Wallace (2009) | High | S | 6 | QUAL |
Berglund et al. (2009) | Undergrad | E | 16b | QUAL |
DiNapoli (2018) | High | M | 10 | QUAN/qual |
DiNapoli (2019) | High | M | 10 | QUAN/qual |
Fouché (2013) | High | S | 3 | QUAL |
García et al. (2019) | Elementary | M | 524 | QUAN |
Hutchison-Green et al. (2008) | Undergrad | E | 12 | QUAL |
Jacobson et al. (2017) | High | S | 110 | QUAN/qual |
Kapur (2008) | High | S | 309 | QUAN/qual |
Kapur (2010) | Middle | M | 75 | QUAN + qual |
Kapur (2011) | Middle | M | 109 | QUAN |
Kapur (2012) | High | M | 133 | QUAN |
Kapur (2014a) | Middle | M | 136 | QUAN |
Kapur (2014b) | High | M | 186 | QUAN |
Kapur and Bielaczyc (2012) | Middle | M | 302 | QUAN/qual |
Kapur and Kinzer (2009) | High | S | 177 | QUAN |
Liu (2015) | Middle | S | 69 | QUAN |
Loibl and Leuders (2019) | Elementary | M | 196c | QUAN |
Loibl and Rummel (2014) | High | M | 279 | QUAN |
Lottero-Perdue and Parry (2015) | Elementary | E | 108b, 14b | QUAL + quan |
Lottero-Perdue and Parry (2017a) | Elementary | E | 74b, 10b | QUAL + quan |
Lottero-Perdue and Parry (2017b) | Elementary | E | 254b, 38b | QUAL + quan |
Matlen and Klahr (2013) | Elementary | S | 52c | QUAN |
Pan et al. (2010) | Undergrad | T | 65, 45 | QUAN → qual |
Pantziara and Philippou (2015) | Elementary | M | 321 | QUAN |
Pathak et al. (2011) | High | S | 4 | QUAL |
Plenty and Heubeck (2013) | Middle | M | 519c | QUAN |
Sawyer (2019) | Undergrad | Design | 33b | QUAL |
Sleezer et al. (2016) | Undergrad | E | 21 | QUAL |
Song (2018) | Elementary | S | 53 | QUAN / qual |
Sorvo et al. (2017) | Elementary | M | 1,327 | QUAN |
Trenshaw et al. (2014) | Undergrad | E | 37, 8 | QUAL |
Trueman (2014) | Undergrad | S | 26 | QUAN |
Upadyaya et al. (2012) | Elementary | M | 69 | QUAN |
Westermann and Rummel (2012) | Undergrad | M | 59c | QUAN / qual |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jackson, A., Godwin, A., Bartholomew, S. et al. Learning from failure: A systematized review. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 1853–1873 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09661-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09661-x